Talk:Linda Hamilton/Archive 1

Trivia

The trivia section seems to be largely taken from the IMDB bio: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000157/bio . Is that a copyright violation? AnonMoos 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

Chowbok keeps deleting the Sarah Connor picture from the Linda Hamilton page. There is never going to be a freely licensed replacement, as all images of Sarah Connor are owned by someone. This lack of a free equivalent is exactly why Fair Use exists. -- Geno Z Heinlein 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a picture of Sarah Connor on the Linda Hamilton page? That's what the Sarah Connor page is for.—Chowbok ☠ 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Connor is Hamilton's most notable role. It distinguishes her in a profound way from other actresses who have only played more conventional women's roles. I fail to see why some obscure reasoning should continue to compromise this entry. Fair use is allowed and makes sense here. Why do you keep reverting? -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because we should only use fair-use images when there's no chance we can get a free image of the subject. Rather than being "obscure resoning", this is a core Wikipedia policy. In this case, the article is about Linda Hamilton, and somebody could take a free picture of her, so we shouldn't use a fair-use image. I'm not convinced by your reasoning that it should be the Sarah Connor photo.—Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're not seriously suggesting that we have to have a Wikipedia user go out and take a picture of Linda Hamilton in order to have a picture on this page, are you? That's completely senseless; it's verging on harassment or stalking. Even if we say that the Sarah Connor picture is not needed, your plan is thoroughly impractical. If we were to follow your recommendation, we would never be able to show any fictional character from a movie on an actor's page, because every last one of those images is under copyright. I don't think we should be compromising the integrity of this page for the sole benefit of some corporation whose lawyers have twisted the legal system to benefit themselves.

Also, even the legal material you're citing authorizes this Fair Use: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It can't. The Sarah Connor pic satisfies this test, therefore your reversions are not per Wikipedia policy, as you have claimed in your edit summary. A Sarah Connor picture is essential to this page. For a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented, and to use any other character or a paparazzi shot would be disingenuous, to say the very least. If I were Catholic, I would call it a lie of omission to not show Sarah Connor on this page. In fact, I am calling it a lie of omission. It's out-and-out deceptive to not show Sarah Connor here. -- Geno Z Heinlein 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is incorrect. There are other means of gaining free photos of an actress without "stalking", and policy interpretation has generally held that indeed, fictional character portraits cannot be shows on actor pages on Wikipedia. Even if "[f]or a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented", which is questionable, it doesn't follow that we have to have the picture on here. That's what words are for.

Removing photo again per policy. Feel free to bring this to arbitration if you like, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.—Chowbok ☠ 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) I request that you please source the statement you made that, "... policy interpretation has generally held that indeed, fictional character portraits cannot be shows on actor pages on Wikipedia". Whose policy? Whose interpretation? Also, generally? That means there are exceptions; that means someone disagrees with you.

(2) You are not impartial. Your own page says that you work for Playboy Enterprises, a company that makes it's money from distribution of copyrighted images. I am asking you politely to stop changing any images on any pages for copyright or fair use reasons. -- Geno Z Heinlein 04:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's pretty funny, as I'm very much against current copyright law. If you look through my old blog entries you'll see I wrote extensively deploring the Eldred case, the Sonny Bono copyright act, the DMCA, etc. I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig and had everybody I know sign a petition supporting the Eldred act. My love for Negativland far predates my employment at Playboy. Anyway, this has less to do with copyright law and is more about Wikipedia policy.

I see you've filed for mediation, so as a gesture of good faith I will leave the image up until this is resolved.—Chowbok ☠ 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I appreciate that. But seriously, if you are against current copyright law -- I am also, I think the law is completely out of control, and would like to see the terms reduced to five years or so -- then why this ongoing anti-fair use campaign? I don't understand why it's not a no-brainer, goes-without-saying kind of issue to put characters on actors' pages. What actors do is portray characters. It seems really obvious to me that character pictures should be allowed on actors' pages.

The companies that make these movies wouldn't be able to make their billions if it weren't for the entire history and culture of humanity, not to mention a hierarchical society that sets up a few big producers and a lot of small consumers. They don't own the properties except in a limited legal sense, because the idea that any person or corporation creates anything completely on their own, forehead-of-Zeus style, is just a legal fiction. We're entitled to those pictures because we are part of the human society that enabled their creation. Fair use is just a specific legal expression of that idea.

I'm not being clever. I genuinely don't get your position, and looking at the pages you point to on these issues reveals huge amounts of -- forgive me, I see no other way to say it -- logic, none of which gives a sensible answer to why the Linda Hamilton page shouldn't have a picture of Linda Hamilton quite literally at work, doing her job. -- Geno Z Heinlein 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but using that image in the infobox is an absolutely clear-cut violation of WP:NFCC#1 and the Foundation's licensing policy. Please find a free image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I say it is allowed under WP:IGNORE. Where were you when I made the good faith gesture of removing the pic? You got your way and you disappeared. I want this issue kicked up higher for a ruling that WP:IGNORE trumps all the legalese and that in-character pictures make sense under my points (2) and (3) on the MedCab page. -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIARM before invoking WP:IGNORE. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure. It says, "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)" I say the article is compromised by your interpretations, and that mine are correct. Get a dev in here if you disagree. -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm damaging the encyclopedia by upholding the non-free content policy, but you should report me at WP:ANI if you believe my behavior is destructive or disruptive. I encourage you to do so. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Images that simply show what living people look like are replaceable non-free content and cannot be used. I recommend that Geno contact Ms. Hamilton's management and request that they provide a free image. There is a great guide to doing so at this page. -- But|seriously|folks  16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Geno again inserted the non-free image, and I removed it, and left him a 3rr notification. If he re-inserts the image again it would be a violation, unfortunately... • Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah, sorry, I don't have a whole team of people ganging up to help me with this. It should be a violation if a whole bunch of people team up to do the revert. And frankly, I wouldn't have felt the need if I had received any co-operation without it. When I voluntarily put up the "Replace this image" image as an act of good faith, everyone disappeared. It was only after I reverted to the original image that I got the pointers that led me to the Board of Trustees, which indicates to me that all you guys cared about was your point of view. I'm sorry I assumed good faith on your part; that was clearly gross stupidity on my part. -- Geno Z Heinlein 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you would take the fact that multiple people (including admins) are "ganging up" on you as an indication that inclusion of a copyrighted image here is, in fact, a violation of policy. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part - I understand your desire to improve the article - but hijacking someone's copyrighted photo to use on our encyclopedia doesn't help our mission of promoting free content. I encourage you to find a free photo of this person, that would help everyone. It's not as hard as you might think. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding getting a free image because I think it's hard, I'm avoiding getting a free image because I think it's inappropriate content for the page. If the page were about J. Random Suit who is a businessman and produces or sells movies, okay, I could see that. But why should we have a picture of Linda Hamilton selling a movie, showing off her house, shopping, getting married, attending a charity function, walking her dog, scratching her nose, getting a coffee or any of the other activities that yield pictures of celebrities these days when the activity that made her notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is really acting?

As for the "ganging up" or consensus issue, no, I don't take it that way, because no one has yet explained to me why the policies, the consensus or anything else justifies putting the policy above the quality of the article. I can quote -- and have quoted -- lots of WP:* articles that support my view, and that hasn't swayed anyone -- or even inspired a statement that I might possibly have some kind of remote, longshot possibility of having a legitimate point -- so policy can't be the all-encompassing final solution everyone's making it out to be. On the contrary, I've gotten nothing but obstreperous, recalcitrant behaviour of the type I'm used to associating with bureaucratic functionaries.

Also, I didn't 'hijack' the picture, we're entitled to its use under fair use law. Is it your position that promoting free content is more important than article quality? I'm now wondering if that's what people are not saying. No one has yet made an explicit statement they they feel that policy trumps content, or that law trumps content, or that promoting free licensing trumps content. Isn't our mission "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language."? (Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#What_is_Wikipedia.3F) Promoting free content is great; I've been doing it since 1987. But since when is that our mission at the Wikipedia? Haven't we lost track of something here?

I hope I'm wrong, I hope no one here really believes that content is secondary. Policy, law, free licensing and lots of other good ideas are intended to support content. RMS has often said that one of the motivations of the GPL is so you can give your friend a copy of software without having to decide between your friend and the law. The Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Our most important traditions have always correctly placed policy after 'content' -- this time with 'content' in a broad sense meaning the primary activity, the activity the policy or law was originally meant to facilitate or protect. Policy has always been meant to support more primary activities, not to be an end in itself.

And yet, in a situation where sense and policy and law are working together for a change, where all these say we can improve the article, you're all telling me we can't. Why? -- Geno Z Heinlein 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

----

The fact that you don't have a whole team of people ganging up with you means you are going against consensus. -- But|seriously|folks  01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The position of the majority has zero correspondence to right and wrong. Either content trumps policy or it doesn't. -- Geno Z Heinlein 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, policy trumps content. We are free to improve articles, within the constraints of policy. -- But|seriously|folks  15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, which content should be included and excluded is determined by consensus. When a large majority of peoples' consensus goes one way, then that is judged to be the best for the encyclopedia. This isn't "imrpove the article to one person's satisfacton", you do have to yield to the majority. You might want to get some wider consensus by starting an RFC and getting a wider swath of users involved, but it's really going to be the body of editors, including but not limited to you, that will have to make the final decision. VxP 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Our rules on non-free content are intentionally stricter than what we are legally permitted to do under the copyright law of the United States. Arguments that we're legally permitted to do what you want to do won't work, because our non-free content rules are not based simply on what's legal. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a notice, User:Geno has "resigned" from Wikipedia, so the issue can be considered closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What a dumb thing to quit over. A picture? People never get so worked up if a paragraph of text is removed, I don't understand it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I predict he'll stew for a while, then come back. -- But|seriously|folks  03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Free image

Here, needs to be cropped... --Magnus Manske 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Added - good find! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Error / Inconistency

Text says she's been married / divorced twice but names three ex-husbands?

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.128.14.17 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've checked and according to Linda Hamilton in her Larry King interview she has only ever been married twice and denies marrying Peter Horton, so I've corrected the entry... User:LondonJae

A point or two not recorded about Ms Hamilton on the Article Page. Her Stepfather was the Fire Chief of the town she lived in. She is a talented voice actress, and can bring books to life with her rich tones and descriptive speaking style, (she must be a great story teller to her kids). She has suffered badly from Bipolar disorder. Curiously, no one has mentioned if her sister also suffers from the disorder.Johnwrd (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing Filmography Entry

She was in a 2010 movie called Refuge (c.f., http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1481574/) Is there is a reason this is not included on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolone148 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted Removal of Content

An unidentified user removed the entry for the planned Terminator sequel from the article's filmography table, calling it "non existent".

The film's planning is not hearsay, per the linked Wikipedia article itself. And it is common practice to include future releases in actresses' filmographies.

Therefore, I undid the removal. Denis Mattos ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminator 2: Bodybuilder

There is absolutely no reference to the bodybuilder/ workouts/ appearance she had during the Filming of Terminator 2. Any reason for this omisssion? Wfoj3 (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hamilton underwent intense physical training to emphasize the character's transformation from the first film." Isn't that enough ? (I verified, that sentence was already there earlier this year when the above comment was made.) She was definitely fit and athletic but didn't have a "bodybuilder" kind of physique (even compared to 1970s / 1980s female bodybuilders, before heavy use of anabolic drugs became rampant).--Abolibibelot (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

NY Times profile

The NY Times published a profile of her on 3 Sept 2019, discussing her return in the new Terminator movie, as well as her career and her marriages. Here's the URL, if someone wants to reference it in the article. I'd do it myself, but I'm not too confident about how to format Wikipedia citations and references.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/movies/linda-hamilton-terminator.html

Omc (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)